Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

2011/8/20 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>> * Saturday, 2011-08-20 at 11:39 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>>> > So in {lo broda ro ri brode}, {ri}
>>> > would have to carry as information not only what Whole {lo
>>> > broda} refers to, but also that quantification of it is to be taken
>>> > with respect to broda-atoms.
>>>
>>> What I meant was that it is "brode", not "ri", that needs to carry
>>> that information.
>>
>> How would that work, sorry?
>>
>> Having it in the sumti seems coherent, and I'm starting to think it
>> might even be usable (and barely diverge from current usage and
>> prescription).
>
> (Do you want "lo broda zo'u ro ri brode"? Otherwise "ro ri" goes in
> the x2 of "brode".)
>
> I think we should be able to say "lo broda zo'u ro ri poi brodi cu
> brode" where "brodi" dismembers the broda-atoms into brodi-atoms.
>
> To be more concrete:
>
> lo bevri be lo jubme zo'u re ri cu verba
> "The carriers of table(s): two of them are children."
>
> should not imply that two whole teams of table carriers are children,
> but is more likely just saying that two people among the table
> carriers are children..
>
> This is basically saying that "lo broda" is "zo'e noi ke'a broda", and
> not "zo'e noi ro ke'a broda".

I agree. And if we wanted to quantify over "re lo bevri be su'o jubme"
in the earlier example, we could say "PA go'i":

  re lo bevri be su'o jubme cu ci mei
  .i pa go'i (= pa lo re lo bevri / pa lo ci mei ) cu verba

mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.